bauer, h., schui, g. & krampen, g. (2012, august).from analogue to digital psychology:results...

#cosci12 Aug 1, 2012

From analog to digital psychology: Results from surveys on information behavior

among German psychologists between 1997

and 2010

Hans Bauer, Gabriel Schui & Günter Krampen

Leibniz Instititute for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier

#cosci12 Information behavior in German psychologists 2

Outline

• Background & purpose of present work

• Methods & methodological issues

• Results

• Discussion & outlook


Digitalization in scholarship

• Electronic communication media by now virtually universal in modern societies

• In scholarship, promise of increased quantity and quality of research output

• However, scholarly disciplines differ in extent, timeframe, and forms of digitalization (Kling & McKim, 2000)

• Social, epistemic, and material foundations (e.g., Becher & Trowler, 2001)

Discipline-specific developments must be considered!


Psychology as a special case

• Encompasses both mechanistic and subject oriented theorizing

• As of today, strongly oriented towards natural sciences paradigm, but no unifying framework

• Research-practice-gap


Information behavior in psychologists

• Information behavior (IB) impacts and is impacted by digitalization

• IB in psychologists not investigated systematically

• To adapt ZPID services, IB (including information needs) in psychology community needs to be considered

• Plans to conduct regular, prospective surveys

• What do we have so far?


Purpose of present work

• In the preceding years, several surveys carried out by ZPID among German-speaking psychology community, including IB-related items

• Compiled results of four surveys conducted between 1997 and 2010 in order to…

• Draw preliminary inferences about changes and continuities in IB during digital transition

• Raise attention to methodological issues


Outline



• Results



Survey sample features

Survey #1.1 Survey #1.2 Survey #1 Survey #2 Survey #3

Sampling date 1997 1999 – 2003-2004 2010

Target population Senior members in German university psychology depts.

Junior members in German, Austrian and Swiss university psychology depts.

– Members of German psychology practitioners' association (BDP)

Members of German psychology researchers' association (DGPs)

Valid responses (response rate)

265 (48 %) 221 (36 %) 486 (41 %) 324 (22 %) 298 (17 %)

Academic titles / positions

a

18 % PD, 82 % FP 45 % Postgrad, 48 % Postdoc, 7 % PD

21 % Postgrad, 22 % Postdoc, 13 % PD, 44 % FP

Not inquired 12 % Postgrad, 26 % Postdoc, 17 % PD, 38 % FP, 7 % missing

% female b 16 32 23 67 38

Mean age missing 36 missing 44,0 42,9

Notes. a Abbreviations used: PD – Privatdozent (roughly comparable to assistant professor); FP – Full Professor;

b Gender missing < 3 % in all samples.

Identical items


Publications referring to samples

• #1.1: Montada, Krampen & Burkard (1999); Krampen & Montada (2000)

• #1.2: Neppl, Wiesenhütter, Krampen & Montada (2001)

• #2: Becker (2004); Krampen, Becker, Labouvie & Montada (2004)

• #3: Krampen, Fell & Schui (2011, 2012a, 2012b)


Comparable survey items

• Surveys #1, #2, and #3: set of items on frequency of use of different information sources

• Only partially overlapping! Mainly „analog“ sources in #1, mainly „digital“ sources in #3, #2 in between

• Surveys #2 and #3: set of items on subjective importance of „information service“ (i.e., literature database) properties

• Surveys #1.2 and #3: open-ended question about problems / desired improvements in information search


Overview of comparison categories

• Use of information sources

• Libraries, Literature databases, Publication contents, WWW

• Importance of database properties

• Up-to-dateness, Quality assurance, Internationality, Cost, Ease of use, Search speed, Workflow integration, Full text access


Outline



• Results



Use of information sources – Libraries

• #1: for unspecified „libraries“, mean of 71 % on percentile scale, 2nd rank among all 25 sources inquired

• #3: 61 % for library OPAC use, ranking 3rd among 32 sources

• Also, score of 84 % on item „importance of direct access to libraries“

• #2: 40 % each for OPAC and local library use (14th / 15th rank among 31 sources)

#1: Composite researcher survey, end-nineties

#2: Practitioner survey, 2003-2004

#3: Researcher survey, 2010


Use of information sources – Lit. Databases

• #1: 63 % (7th) for PSYNDEX, 67 % (4th) for PsycINFO, 38 % (15th) for unspecified „other“ DBs

• Refers to CD-ROM format; means are only 33 % each for online versions of PSYNDEX and PsycINFO

• #3: 57 % (6th) for PSYNDEX, 73 % (2nd) for PsycINFO, 45 % (12th) for „other“ DBs

• #2: 25 % (17th) for PSYNDEX, 11 % (21st) for PsycINFO





Use of information sources – Publications

• #1: 75 % and 1st rank for „browsing of top journals in field“, 58 % (9th) for „browsing of many books“

• #3: 88 % (1st) for unspecified use of „online journals“ as information source, 49 % (10th) for „print journals“, 56 % (7th) for „open access online journals“

• #2: 79 % (6th) for unspecified journal use, 88 % (1st) for unspecified book use #1: Composite researcher

survey, end-nineties




Use of information sources – WWW

• #1: 48 % (10th) for unspecified „search on the WWW“

• #3: Host of items • „Conventional search engine“: 59 % (5th)

• Google Scholar: 56 % (7th); Google Books: 41 % (15th)

• Author homepages: 44 % (13th)

• Discipline-specialized websites: 38 % (16th)

• Document- / Preprint-Servers: 25 % (24th)

• Researcher social networking sites: 8 % (30th)

• #2: 73 % (7th) for unspecified „search engines“, 82 % (4th) for Google, 56 % (8th) for profession-specific websites





Importance of database properties - Similarities

• Up-to-dateness: 92 % in #2 (2nd rank among 12 inquired properties) vs. 97 % in #3 (2nd among 31)

• Quality assurance: 95 % (1st) for „service professionalism“ and 87 % (4th) for „certified information“ in #2 vs. 94 % (6th) for „correctness“ and 85 % (10th) for „professional quality assurance“ in #3

• Interdisciplinarity: 70 % (9th) in #2 vs. 67 % (18th) in #3

• Search speed: 78 % (6th) in #2 vs. 80 % (12th) in #3

• Workflow integration: 67 % (10th) for possibility of „subsequent processing“ in #2 vs. 72 % (15th) for „seamless connections of resources“ and 68 % (17th) for „dataset exporting“ in #3




Importance of database properties - Differences

• Cost: 79 % (5th) for „low user fees“ in #2 vs. 88 % (7th) for „open access (no charge)“ in #3

• Internationality: 71 % (8th) in #2 vs. 96 % (4th) in #3

• Ease of use: 91 % (3rd) for „straightforward, uncomplicated search technology“ in #2 vs. 52 % (20th) for „‘intelligent‘ search engines“, 38 % (26th) for „recommender systems“, 71 % (15th) for „powerful search syntax“, and 75 % (13th) for „many searchable database fields“ in #3

• Full text access: ranked 1st (98 %) in #3; in #2, mean of 68 % regarding „how important“ full text services would be in the future, and 25 % regarding current frequency of use of online full text services




Open questions on information search problems

• #1.2: „Desired improvements in PSYNDEX“

• Online access (most often); integration into literature management workflow; linking to full texts; integration with other literature databases; improved up-to-dateness and search features

• #3: „Typical difficulties encountered while searching for information“

• Access to full texts (most often, by far); search strategy (choosing keywords, identifying all pertinent literature); literature coverage in DBs (discipline, language, publication type re- strictions); usability flaws in DBs

#1.2: Junior research survey, 1999



Outline



• Results



IB changes in psychology researchers?

• No fundamental change in IB in psychology researchers in the course of digitalization

• Main concern in information search: efficiently identifying and accessing all pertinent literature

• Now and then, journals and literature databases most important sources

• Google-style searching increasing, but databases still used more often

• Library search somewhat declining, but still frequently used and considered important


Possible trends

• Ongoing „internationalization“ of German psychology research

• Increased use of PsycINFO

• Increasing quota of English-language publications (Krampen, Schui & Bauer, 2012)

• Need for integration of national-level databases like PSYNDEX

• PubPsych (www.pubpsych.eu)

+0,5 -0,2 -0,9 +0,8 +1,2 +1,3

+1,3 +2,8

+1,4 +0,6 +2,4

+6,9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% e

ng

lish

-lan

gu

ag

e

Year of publication


Possible trends

• Open access publishing so far not commonplace in German psychology (lower use of open access journals, low use of preprint servers)

• But: In 2010, 4,4 % of English-language articles published in open access journals, vs. only 2,4 % in 2009 (Krampen, Schui & Bauer, 2011, 2012)

• More high quality open access journals need to be established

• PsychOpen (www.psychopen.eu)


Practitioners‘ perspective

• More use of general-purpose search engines and books, less use of libraries and literature databases

• More emphasis on ease of use, less emphasis on international contents in databases

• Differences most likely due to differences in available resources and work context (more localized)

• If psychological practice is to be grounded in empirical foundations, information providers should not only take researchers‘ perspective into account!


Thanks for your

attention!


References

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Becker, R. (2004). Informationsbedarf und Informationsverhalten in der psychologischen Praxis. Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications

Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 1306–1320. doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1047>3.0.CO;2-T

Krampen, G., Becker, R., Labouvie, Y., & Montada, L. (2004). Internet-Ressourcen für die Psychologie sowie Informationsbedarf und Informationsverhalten von BDP-Mitgliedern. Report Psychologie, 29, 588–600.

Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2011). Psychologists' research activities and professional information-seeking behaviour. Journal of Information Science, 37, 439–450. doi:10.1177/0165551511412148

Krampen, G., Fell, C., & Schui, G. (2012a). Professionelles Informationsverhalten von Psychologen im Arbeitsfeld "Forschung und Lehre". B.I.T.online, 15, 117–126.


References

Krampen, G., Fell, C. B., & Schui, G. (2012b). Professionelle Publikationspräferenzen von Mitgliedern der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs). Psychologische Rundschau, 63, 175–178. doi:10.1026/0033-3042/a000129

Krampen, G., & Montada, L. (2000). Nutzung alter und neuer Medien bei Literaturrecherchen von Experten. In G. Krampen & H. Zayer (Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation II (pp. 89–99). Bonn: Dt. Psychologen-Verlag.

Krampen, G., Schui, G., & Bauer, H. (2011). ZPID-Monitor 2009 zur Internationalität der Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der ausführliche Bericht. ZPID Science Information Online, 11(2). Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications

Krampen, G., Schui, G., & Bauer, H. (2012). ZPID-Monitor 2010 zur Internationalität der Psychologie aus dem deutschsprachigen Bereich: Der ausführliche Bericht. ZPID Science Information Online, 12(1). Retrieved July 5, 2012 from http://www.zpid.de/index.php?wahl=IuD&uwahl=publications

Montada, L., Krampen, G., & Burkard, P. (1999). Persönliche und soziale Orientierungslagen von Hochschullehrern/innen der Psychologie zu Evaluationskriterien über eigene berufliche Leistungen. Psychologische Rundschau, 50, 69–89. doi:10.1026//0033-3042.50.2.69

Neppl, R., Wiesenhütter, J., Krampen, G., & Montada, L. (2001). Literaturrecherche-Strategien wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter/innen in psychologischen Instituten. In G. Krampen & H. Zayer (Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation III (pp. 125–134). Bonn: Dt. Psychologen-Verlag.

bauer, h., schui, g. & krampen, g. (2012, august).from analogue to digital psychology:results...

Education